If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Foreign women can obtain tourist visas for the purpose of giving birth in the United States before returning to their homelands, said Beth Finan, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman. WTF? http://bit.ly/QIU3Fl

At $25,000 per birth, the initial cost to us,
just for the 400,000 Anchor babies being born each year,
is $10 billion dollars/per year.

Education costs per child $10,000 per year$120,000 per child for 12 years of education,
another $48 billion dollars per year for education

Every year, with the birth of 400,000 anchor babies
Americans incur a debt of $58 billion dollars;every year, ad infinitum

and that's just the cost for birth and education.
it doesn't include Welfare, Food stamps, Section-8 Housing, etc,
or the relatives that will now be allowed into our United StatesThe costs are killing us.

SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) that a person borne within the United States who at the time of birth, even though the person's parents are subjects of a foreign power, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity for the foreign power, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The question left unanswered in Wong is "but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States." The reason is that at the time Wong was decided (1898) there was no Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)(a 1952 Congressional creation). The INA (as amended) codified how aliens can obtain lawful permanent residence through various immigration methodologies established by Congress. So, the unanswered question is whether since 1952 (INA effective date) a person's alien parents can attain permanent domicil and residence per Wong without adhering to the INA lawful permanent residence requirements.

SCOTUS has already ruled (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) that any child in the US - legal, illegal, or citizen - cannot be denied public education. Health care via the "emergency room" also has always existed regardless of a person's immigration status. And since US Citizens under 18 cannot petition for a relative (petitioners need to be old enough to sign a lawful contract - the affidavit of support), that's a long wait for the "anchor" to set into the ground. The belief that having a USC child will automatically prevent removal of undocumented parent(s) has been proven false thousands of times.

from Justice Brennan for the majority in the Plyer v Doe case

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that
“[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.39
The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.

And from the 1985 SCOTUS opinion in INS v Rios-Pineda ---
Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that the “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

In the 2004 SCOTUS opinion in Hamdi v Rumsfeld ---the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “[b]orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas. (from James C. Ho article cited above)